Knowing we allowed these things to happen makes me MORE uneasy about our safety, not less.

I'm on the side that believes these things did more harm than good.

But, I agree, we are aren't going to change each others minds. I too enjoyed the debate as well and thank you for being polite and informative. You're the first person I've ever chatted with who at least was familiar with current US law, regulations, and conventions.

Until next time... ;-)

Again, I appreciate the tone of your comments and the opportunity to engage in reasoned debate with fellow individuals of good will. The historical facts, as you present them, are accurate. However, moral relativism places us on a slippery slope. When we reserve the right to employ certain tactics because of our moral righteousness while deploring other regimes because they applied them for evil purposes it begs the question as to where we draw the line, what gives us the authority to make those distinctions, and how we can be assured that we are morally correct. Although we can make the legitimate claim to being the greatest nation in the history of mankind, there have been instances where we have engaged in morally questionable activities (or supported those who have), both in the domestic and foreign theaters. To take on the authority for determining how every other nation should act is to accept the obligation of being, in actions as well as proclamations, the paragon of moral rectitude. It is an ideal no nation or individual can match. And, like many conservatives, I am loathe to invest in any one individual or administration, whether it be Obama's or Bush's, the sole authority to make those kinds of decisions and to draw the lines of distinction as to when (and by who's hands)such techniques are legally acceptable. Plus, even if I was comfortable with allowing any one person or administration that power (and I believe that kind of power is corrupting), I am still not persuaded that the techniques we are discussing are ultimately effective at doing anything other than causing physical and mental harm and pain. While we have already agreed that the perpetrators of these acts should receive their just punishments, this particular debate is solely about intelligence gathering. Fortunately, we live in a nation where we can engage openly in such a conversation. That is precisely where the debate on a matter of this magnitude should remain as opposed to a cabal of a relatively small cabal of individuals who purport to know who is a threat to our security and how to deal with that individual.

Regarding your link to Thomas E. Ricks article (another opinion piece that does not establish precedent):
First, I have many doubts as to the verity of the letter's author. Ignoring those misgivings, the LTC who wrote the missive states that “torture is bad” – I agree. But then “waterboarding and other such 'enhanced' techniques are good for training “ . So it is acceptable to subject US forces to it but not the enemies of our nation and possibly our very existence? Do you not see some modicum of illogic at work here? Please, objectively speaking, does that line of reason even make sense?

Rex, one more thing. I find it interesting that you use CIA memo justifying the means and circumstance and parameters for waterboarding but previously have quoted US law and conventions which are very clear that there is no justification - none - for this action.

The convention we've signed (via Reagan) is clear "” No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”"

even under threat of imminent attack, this is still, under any "application", illegal.

This guy just aggregates this better than I ever could: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-gestapo-precedent-for-eits.html

But, again, I know you wont agree. As I said, this is why we have courts. I can only hope someone prosecutes these actions properly.

Rex,

I know I'll never get you to see this and that's fine. Frankly, this is why we have courts. There are many who disagree with you. And many within both the military and intelligence communities with decades of experience who disagree with you.

The items you site are meaningless without some reference. You've provided none.

This isn't about emotion. It's about the law. You want to believe as long as you can justify your actions with conformity to regulations that you've stayed within the boundaries of the law.

That's really the key this all turns on and the point you, again, fail to see. This activity has no precedent for our service and security forces because it was never allowed prior. These activities were sought out by those who felt we needed to do these things to gain more intelligence. They found legal justification for these actions based on legal translation (I'd argue incorrectly but, again, I'd leave that to a court of law) of these things.

You simply agree with that translation.

I don't.

Again, this is why we have courts.

I sleep just fine. The hundreds of professionals who do good work and protect this country who also think this is not only illegal but unproductive stand as a reminder that this kind of treatment of our prisoners isn't what helps us win.

one of many: http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/12/torture_a_national_guard_officer_responds_to_krauthammer

I'd direct you to the comments for more.

I have not ignored a single legal precedent in our discussion. Though discontinued in 2004, waterboarding was “legal”. Up to 2009 it was still “legal” under the provisions of U.S. Code. Only by directive has its status changed. As to why there is no citable legal precedent as per case law, it is because the terms used in the Geneva Convenetions, U.S. Code and even some subscripts of international law did not make the procedure illegal. No reason to question it. Additionally, within the CIA’s operational parameters there were strict controls. From a CIA memo:
“Moreover, the techniques have been carefully designed to minimize the risk of suffering or injury and to avoid inflicting any serious or lasting physical or psychological harm. Medical screening, monitoring, and ongoing evaluations further lower such risk. The "waterboard," is subject to additional limits. It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent, or that substantial and credible indicators demonstrate that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or delay additional attacks; and that other interrogation methods have failed to elicit the information. Even with regard to detainees who satisfy these threshold requirements, enhanced techniques are considered only if the on-scene interrogation team determines that the detainee is withholding OR MANIPULATING (my emphasis) information.”

I am afraid that objectivity is lost on you. You stand solely on emotional parameters. I respect that, but you will continue to hear only what you want to hear. In my former profession we dealt with absolutes. The interrogation tactics and techniques both confirmed and uncovered new information which would then be subject to further exploitation. The LA Tower was only one of how many operations in the making? There is proof all over, but if you want I can cite other examples of information retained by EIT and specifically waterboarding that include
1. A “pre-2004 election threat”
2. interruption of Guraba (second wave) Cell (2003)
3. capturing one of AQ’s important financiers (2004)
4. disrupting “AQ organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi"
5. "provided significant information on two operatives, including Jose Padilla who was tasked to plan and build and detonate a 'dirty bomb’ in the Washington DC area."
6. continuous and vital actionable intelligence about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his AQ-Iraq network
7. over 6000 intelligence reports regarding terrorist plans and operations that provide additional opportunities for targeting or exploitation.

When I sleep, it is in the confidence that what we have done to preserve this nation is legal, moral and ethical. That is good enough for me. Obamas directive is sheer political showmanship. Forcing the CIAs adherence to FM 2-22.3 produces the detrimental intelligence gap that led to the enormous upswing of terrorism through the 90’s and pre 9/11/01. If that is the world you wish to live in then I pity you; and fear for us all.

for 1-4 as I've said regarding EIT - let's let a court decide (since we do for all these other things already)

for 5 - that's why we have techniques that have nothing to do with things that require "resistance" and work rather well actually. but, your training should tell you that.

for 6 - please provide something that supports this. KSM was captured in 2003. the LA "bombing" cell was disrupted in 2002. No one has been able to provide anything that supports what you're saying here. Again, you'd be the first.

Rex, you can ignore the legal precedents set but, they apply.

What's sad is you completely miss the fact that, on the technical aspects of the specific actions carried out by our people against detainees, you're right - there is no precedent. Wonder why that might be? Because, before now, no one in our govt allowed these things to happen. We only have legal precedent for cases where other countries did REMARKABLY similar things and we prosecuted them. We also have US precedent that was prosecuted.

You question my viewpoint that waterboarding is severe - fine. As I said, all I'd ever ask is that a court be given these facts, be allowed to review our actions, and make a decision. I can't ask for more than that.

And again, if you could provide any proof that this works, you'd be the first.

BTW, the field manual applies to CIA now.

Also, as I said, the manual states (as it should) that any practice that is questionable, should be looked at through the lens of the law.

As to why we did it - why would we waterboard someone 183 times? because people like you believe in these techniques as a means to hear what you want to hear.

These tactics are a means to gain knowledge you want to confirm, not new information. What was desired was information linking al queda to iraq. we knew it was there...we just needed to push hard enough. that's why these techniques are used to gain false confessions...they've always been used for these things...just never by us.

we were wrong.

this isn't science. it's history repeating itself. even the nazis had dr's present during torture...if you want to test the limits, it's important to have dr's available to measure your results.

""and lucky for detainees, those operatives do adhere to the law, guidelines and rules of engagement.""

no, lucky for all of us. at least now.

I will freely admit that I have no training in interrogation. But I dont find that to be a requirement to determine whether we acted unlawfully given the facts.

Regarding detainee status, you said "they were unlawful combatants". OK, well, unlawful implies law and, as you stated -

"First is quoted 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340, 2340A. I already gave that to you and nowhere in that statute is waterboarding established as torture. Read, please: The definition of torture is "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict SEVERE physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;"

So, to me, based on your view, the law applies. Even if the law didnt apply to the detainees, our folks were, in fact, acting under the color of law.

Second I'd say - as an american - even if we're presented with the choice to apply the law, or not - the army field manual is clear - go with the law.

However, the question then becomes (in my mind) is waterbaording "severe".

I'd say yes. Given what I know about the technique, it's use in previous torture regimes, and the anecdotal experiences of those who have experienced it (richard armitage included - who even in a controlled, training setting, had a severe recollection).

If it were not "severe", I find it hard to then explain its use to exact false confessions in previous regimes. And if it's not "severe" I find it's use to "break" detainees we held also hard to explain.

As you've said, this is part of a process. Most of this process is now forbidden. Most of this process has never been shown to garner valid intelligence (unless you have proof ( (you'd be the first)). And those who have experienced it have all claimed it was, indeed, "severe" and traumatizing to the point of "mental pain and suffering".

But, I'd go further and ask - how would you expect a court to judge these actions?

To me - and this is all I'd ever want - is, to be able to have those actions fleshed out and a court to decide. based on previous legal decisions regarding "similar" (your words, not mine) techniques, I'd argue the court would find these acts illegal (as they previously have - my words).

and, beyond the legal questions - it's clear this technique isn't useful.

So, I fail to see where any use of it is something to be defended.

from both a legal and practical standpoint - it has no use.

Do you think any laws (international and/or US) apply to captives we've taken in the war on terror that were subsequently treated to EIT? If so, which? If not, why not?

In short, no. First, very few were subjected to EIT. Regarding captives taken in Afghanistan from October 2001 through 2003, they were unlawful combatants and AQ operatives. They were not subject to the Geneva Accords nor Constitutional rights under US law. In short, they were not prisoners of war. None fit the articles or provisions Article 4 of GC which defines prisoners of war:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements under the following conditions:
1. being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
2. having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
3. that of carrying arms openly and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(Now, some may refer to AQ and the other “foreign fighters” we encountered as meeting a partial description of “volunteer corps or resistance movement” ; however, they did not meet any of the three conditions.)

4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles who carry a valid identity card issued by the supported military.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The Washinton Post article you cite does not address waterboarding as utilized by the CIA and other HUMINT operatives. As I have demonstrated, there is a vast difference between water torture and its myriad variants, and waterboarding. It is moot. And if any US law officer were to practice any derivation of the technique on anyone under their custody, I would hope they got hung by their buster browns. That would be a significant violation of US law.

And to Jason Usry: I am quite sure that the vast majority would much rather watch an American being waterboarded and then safely returned to his cell for three hots and a cot than what I have seen in places such as Somalia and Afghanistan. Under your line of logic it would be acceptable to behead captives and mutilate their bodies. The Golden Rule only works when you are dealing with folks with some measure of humanity. End of discussion, dimwit.

Rex, I appreciate you sticking with this. And the detail of your posts. But, let me attempt to explain this another way. And first, I have to ask since, knowing this will determine which path I take to showing you how where you're missing the legality of our actions.

Do you think any laws (international and/or US) apply to captives we've taken in the war on terror that were subsequently treated to EIT? If so, which? If not, why not?

I think knowing where you stand here will better help me illustrate to you where you're missing this.

and thanks again for staying on this. It's nice to have a thoughtful back and forth without the "riff raff" butting in. :-)

I will agree in principle that using forceful techniques may impugn, to some little degree, our sterling perception of the shining city on the hill. No one wants to recognize the sullen and often dirty underside that exists in every society. How we control that underside is what makes us superior in most aspects. What Stalin did was purge Soviet society and forcefully shape the very construct of his subjects to his will; not extract useful intel. His intent behind his actions promoted his evil, not the tools he employed. In contrast, Stalin also modernized the Soviet military and industrial complex, nearly rivaling the United States ability...does that make production, capitalism and military power evil? No, only how they are used. Stalin used various tactics as a manner of subjugation and terror. I can do the same with my children with a wooden spoon or restrictions from TV for a month. Also, in regard to the final effect of the show trials, it hardly mattered whether guilt or innocence was established; the subject was already on their way to gulag or to face the firing squad. Hence, “Show Trial”. The Khomeini regime employed the same tactics in 1979 as did Saddam in earlier years; in Nicaragua if your name showed on a particular list you were dead. The processes by how they got there were irrelevant to the end results.

Regarding the efficiency pertaining to EIT you must remember, you don’t get to see “the inquisitor” unless you meet very specific criteria: who you are, where you are recognized in an organizational structure, what you may have already disclosed, what someone else discloses about you, etc. It is a detailed process that puts you on the waterboard. The “filtering” process is designed to compare known good and confirmable intelligence against second or third sources. It is the art of similarity in many cases...no crystal balls. This also provides a comparison against which “innocent civilians” are more likely separated than not.

The jury afforded its verdict long ago about the effectiveness of the myriad processes of interrogation and in particular EIT. Some disagree with the science; most who have worked with it do not. All that said, I do not think the “ticking nuke” scenario holds a great deal of credibility since the process for extracting usable intelligence is, as mentioned, involved. There are ways of getting intel that is actionable when time is critical, but if you are going for the big payoff stuff, time and technique must become your ally.

Your arguments have run out of gas.

The specific clause regarding the threat of death is embodied by mock execution, not gagging and sputtering. As I stated before, waterboarding produces the primary effect of laryngospasm and gagging which is highly unpleasant, disorienting and disagreeable. Not deadly. The subject knows, at least in the back of their mind, that they cannot drown since they are not being immersed. The effect plays on the mammalian response to immersion, but not the actual effect. Under training, many can withstand the procedure for several minutes if they stay calm, are in good physical condition (breath-hold diving is a good preparation) and remember that they cannot drown unless immersed; which is not part of the procedure. That said, how long can you go on hitting your head against a wall? Sooner or later you have to stop. Same with laryngospasm and gagging. Try downing a 32oz beer while plugging your nose and you elicit a very similar response.
"SEVERE physical or mental pain or suffering" is documented in medical journals as physical and often permanent harm to soft tissue, bone or nerve endings such as found in third degree burns, traumatic amputation or blunt trauma found in crushing or contorting injuries.
“The US has held, as stated in the UW article, that this technique is torture and is a war crime.” The article did not nor can you. Cite me any legal precedence…you cannot since it is not documented as such. The procedure is not authorized; it has never been made illegal except under EO by Obama. But that was in 2009 and EO is not law, it is directive policy. But then we are still at the crux, you have not established the procedure, as executed from 2001-2005, as being torture or illegal.
Insofar as “OTHER PROCEDURES calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality" might arguably be “in line” but they do not “line up”. Profound disruption again is defined by what level of permanence or extreme duration or more importantly, permanent effect? That is amorphous terminology that purposely left a level of subjectivity. I sleep an average of four hours a night. It is my natural biorhythm. Most would consider that a profound disruption of their normal sleep pattern.
Being stripped, tied or chained, deprived of sleep food or warmth, rounded off with a little waterboard session and some time in very close quarters like a foot locker partly buried in the ground is what many called SERE training. . .or a weekend with my ex wife.
You cannot make the argument, friend. You don’t have the facts on your side. It is not torture, it is effective when employed by the right folks and it proved to get the job done on multiple occasions.

There is a significant and distinct difference between what the Japanese did and the EIT used by interrogation specialists. Waterboarding is a highly controlled technique, not immersion or drowning. Waterboarding is used to extract information, which is then cross checked against additional sources of information and other data lines; the Japanese did it for fun...that is why they were tried, convicted and executed as war criminals. McCain was tortured; I can see why he has reservations against any sort of physical or emotional EIT. But the bottom line is that techniques we used in the past worked. Whether or not people favor "torture" as punishment for whatever reasons is irrelevant. If you stick a drill in someones knee because it gives you a willy, you are torturing them and deserve whatever retrebution you recieve. And I agree, "The desire for, and the extraction of, vengeance..." is wholly out of moral bounds. Understandable in many cases but still reprehensible. There are very fine lines that can easily be crossed, the application of EIT has, for the greatest part, been kept "clean". An unpleasant business, but legal and effective.

Uh, the "university" article is the one citing precedent. that was kind of the point.

if you've seen the other site I mentioned then you know that there are MANY with the same training as you (or more in some cases) who would say you're full of sh** and waterboarding is, of course, torture and illegal.

even with the facts in hand, you still can't see it.

sorry, can't help you there.

You cannot cite a legal opinion article in a University website as legal precedent. You have not established where the technique of waterboarding as employed as EIT by CIA officers is made illegal under the provisions of US code or by direction of the President, prior to 2006, during which time between 2001 and 2005 it was legally and lawfully employed against enemy combatants. The article does not even establish amicus under the provisions of US law...it is an opinion piece. Some law student probably needed extra credit.

The practice of waterboarding was remanded by the CIA under provisions of the Director of Operations during 2006 when issues about its use was used politically by the Democrat party. Even though numerous leaders within Congress where briefed on its use and effectiveness, the CIA, under a decision paper by the Director, discontinued it's use because of the potential pollitical fallout, not legality nor effectiveness. Sorry, dude, but you are way off base here. It is effective, legal, and the only thing that made it "illegal" was Obama's EO recinding nearly all of Bush's EO allowing for EIT, detention and disposition of enemy detainees.

And I have seen the .org site you mention. Boo Hoo. We do mean things to mean people in order to preserve our way of life. Tough darts. We do far much more good in the world. Maybe these folks shouldnt fly planes into buildings or blow up innocent people going about their business.

And waterboarding Is Not Torture. Dealing with my ex-wife is torture, but not waterboarding.

Rex, I'd encourage you to watch this documentary: http://www.torturingdemocracy.org/

I'd then encourage you to read this:
http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/

The former should answer any concerns you have in terms of how this act is viewed by insiders.

The latter answers your requests for legal evidence.

Sorry Ace, I have been working and not able to get on here. In answer to your question, I remembered it reported in the news. A quick google search turned this up as the first listing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/19/terror/main4877395.shtml

Ex-Bush Official: Many At Gitmo Innocent
Ret. Colonel Says U.S. Forces Swept Up Suspects Without Regard To Whether They Were Non-Combatants

Sorry I didn't respond quicker. You seem genuinely interested in knowing the truth and you may never see this.
And you guys keep quoting McCain saying torture works, the problem is, he opposes it.

Sorry Snarky, but you are wrong on several counts. Prior to the 2006 provisions changing EIT, waterboarding, as applied from 2001 to 2005, is not torture. It still today, by definition, is not torture. The technique is simply remanded and no longer authorized under current Army FM's, which by the way, do not cover what the CIA may do. The CIA, however has also restricted the use of the technique.
Under the provisions of TITLE 18 USC PART I, CHAPTER 113C § 2340, the definition of torture is "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict SEVERE physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; whereas “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; the threat of imminent death; or the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

Nowhere does waterboarding fit this description and I challenge you to cite legal precedence pursuant to USC or Constitutional law, prior to 2001, to prove otherwise.

The technique was remanded in 2006 and is not considered simulated drowning but a process that produces some of the physical characteristics of drowning, to include an autonomic gag reflex. In order to drown, your lungs must fill or partially fill with water or have the same symptomatic causation of laryngospasm or even pulmonary edema. Properly applied, waterboarding mostly elicits laryngospasm.

You are also completely off line in your interpretation of Patreaus. I suggest you read the COIN manual he co-authored and also some of his writings in regard to his command of forces in Iraq and SE Asia. You need to do more relevant research. And to say that my opinion belies my training, you are far off target; you know nothing of my background, training or experience. Same as I know of you.

What's up with the posts about these people potentially being innocent? Or water boarding being against some International Law? Or what we did causing more people to join ranks against us.

Get this straight. Fundamentalist Islam hates the west. Period. They want to destroy us.

I am not going to try to split hairs and define what is torture and what is not. Frankly, I wouldn't care if we did torture these SOBs if it helped in our war effort.

Don't start nothing, won't be nothing!

sorry rex, you're wrong. It is torture and it is illegal. And it's really easy to determine this with a quick google search.

And is also banned for use in interrogations by army and CIA.

waterboarding is simulated drowning.

Patreaus was referring to our use of this and other techniques as damaging and ineffective.

all the other stuff you mentioned is also not allowed.

to say waterboarding isnt torture belies any training you may have had and any US Law or convention relating to torture.

Hey maybe we should charge all them little girls that keep eachother up all night at pajama parties?

Pretty easy to sit back judge a issue you will never come close to in real life. You never served and just like Dick Cheney you "had other priorities".

Until you can spell "pour" correctly, I have absolutely no respect for you. Although with your skills at making analogies, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Waterboarding is NOT torture! We use waterboarding as a training tool in our own Military, therefore it cannot be considered "torture". Is it unpleasent? Hell yes, it's unpleasent! It's supposed to be unpleasent! But is it "torture"? No!! Absolutely not! "Torture" is what was done to John Mcain and Jerrimiah Denton and a host of other American GI's at the hands of our enemies and to call what we did to three TERRIORISTS "torture" is an insult and a slap in the face to every American POW! Barack Obama, Eric Holder and the rest of that bunch should hang their heads in shame for even SUGGESTING such a thing. If you want to know what torture REALLY looks like, just read "When Hell Was in Session" by Jerrimiah Denton. In compairison, waterboarding is a day at the beach!

and save a thousand of my countrymen in the process, I would gladly go to jail (as long as I get to choose the countrymen).

Do any of you people read or remember history. The Germans in WWII were incredibly effective at dismantling the resistance movements. I am sure the captured French would have thought waterboarding was a vacation. So what did the French learn to do over time. Comparmentalize their operations so each person only knew so much....so when they were captured they could not give up too many of their friends. Its the same stupid argument leftists make about building a wall to stop illegal immigration. They whine it wont work....ask the East Germans if a wall works. Both sides collective grasp of history is appalling.

You can't have "torture" without considering Intent.

If I kill someone while robbing a bank, it's murder; if I kill someone about to slit the throat of a 3-year old, it's heroic.

Same holds for the torture issue.

Firstly, the applied technique of waterboarding as conducted by trained technicians is not drowning, it is not torture. It is unpleasant as all get out...I know from training. So are other techniques applied in gaining useful and actionable intel. But they are far from torture. In the vast majority of cases that I am aware of where technicians went beyond the pale, or applied unauthorized techniques that could justifiably be called torture, the result was prosecution. But waterboarding is not torture, regardless of its current status under Army regs or FM's. And those who do not understand interrogation need to know that to even get to the waterboard, you go through a great number of other levels of interrogation. This is not "hey, lets just waterboard this guy".

Snarkybird, regarding your quote from Gen. Patreus, you have taken it out of context. He was referring specifically to line troops who did not have the training or experience to engage in EIT and subsequently would cause injury or death to whomever was their subject. I believe he quantified his remark with something like "best left to the pros" . While he did write some related doctrine, and under his COIN research spelled out the limitations of EIT, but never discounted them. The techniques he brought to light, being in line with the Genevea Conventions were already in use but the scope was still at the tactical level; not higher. The guidelines he enforced were to keep our line troops from conducting the same sort of actions they saw employed against Iraqi civilians, military, police and their own battle buddies. It is called ROE.

But waterboarding is not torture. Niether is deprevation, stress positions, or other EIT. I could, however tell you what torture looks like, but that is for another day.

I think torture should be viewed as little more then a powerful tool, with no morality of its own. All that matters is why its employed. Its much like a gun, which can be used recklessly or with intent to harm innocent people, or it can be used in self-defense.

Everyone here has missed the point of this debate about torture.
Neil's scenario is fine for a private citizen and their respective families, thats his opinion.
For the United States Government to be torturing people, that is inexcuseable without equivication and dooing so in the name of the U.S. and all of it's Citizens. That is not tolerable. We are not a police state.

When we bring our own under microscope and not the terrorists, something is really wrong here. The government is paid to protect Americans, not others and certainly not terrorists.

Could someone please answer a simple question: why is waterboarding "torture"? This question is being asked in good faith, and I look forward to answers given in the same spirit.

How can you call waterboarding and sleep deprivation torture. Having to live with this knucklehead as my president for the next 3 years is worse than anything one could have imagined.

Well put Neal...

I'll tell you what I would do, or more to the point, what the perp should hope for...

They should pray to whatever God they Pray to that the Police or other Authorities bound by the law finds them before I do... I'll make it last 3 weeks if necessary...

The Masked Independent

http://themaskedindependent.blogspot.com/

Honestly Neal, this is the best you've got? This is the same scenario that you and every other hack have played out for your intellectually lazy listeners. Rather than actually confront this issue for what it is, you throw this red herring out that supposedly justifies suspending the Geneva convention. I don't know Neal, the day I wake up and find myself in a Tom Clancy novel, I'll let you know about the "chopping off fingers one-by-one" thing.

Back to reality:

All water boarding (defined as torture by international law)did was compromise our moral high ground and help recruit more terrorists. Ask anyone who actually knows what they are talking about. If water boarding is such a pleasant experience, I gather that you are first in line to give it a go? I think that's a more reasonable scenario to add to the equation. Let us know when you're ready to put your money where your mouth is.

Water boarding and real torture is different from "scaring" a suspect. If Boortz or anyone were to be tortured, they'd confess or admit to anything. We saw this countless number of times in world history, The Inquistion being one that comes to mind. Boortz should read a book called On Killing, written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, in which the author writes that torture in not only inneffective, it is also detrimental to the army or state torturing. Guys like Boortz talk tough, but they'd be the first ones running out of a building if something goes down. John McCain also is against torture.

What happened to all the outrage and waving of the American flags after 9/11? You left-wing liberals who have such compassion for those scumbags who attacked us on 9/11, just remember the last choice those Americans who were trapped in the upper floors of the twin towers had on that fateful day; to decide whether they should burn to death in those towers or leap out the windows to their deaths. It was so hot in the towers that some actually chose to jump. And you have an issue with pouring water over the face of the men who were the masterminds behind such a thing? You should be ashamed of yourselves. I'll take Bush & Cheney back over the present occupants of the White House any day.

Any nromal person would allow EIT to save a family member from a bad guy. The people on here that say otherwise are full of hollier than thou crapolla. The bad guy does not deserve any better while an innocents life is on the line.

As for the legality of torturing a terrorist, let it be against the law, I feel safe putting my life in the hands of a jury of my peers in a situation like this.

As for chicken hawk charges, see how most people act when you threaten a family member and see how real this behavior is.

As for going to hell I will simply as for forgiveness you moron.

Actually, waterboarding is considered to be torture. The US considered it to be torture when it was done by Japanese soldiers in World War II. Whether or not the use of this interrogation technique (or any type of torture) was justified has been and will be debated by honorable people all across the ideological spectrum. The debate over the morality of waterboarding however, does not change the fact that the United States and its fellow victorious Western Democracies viewed it as torture and a war crime.

Let's take Neal's scenario one additional step. What happens if the suspect you are torturing doesn't talk?
Despite your efforts, the person just won't give up the relevant information. Is it then okay to maybe torture their spouse in front of this suspect? How about his kids? I mean, according to Neal, you would do whatever it takes. Right?

Just because someone hasn't worn the uniform, doesn't make them any less of a man that those that have.

I wore the uniform and watched my brothers die in my arms. I fought for this country and hold my head high because of it.

But to sit here and judge those that haven't worn the uniform as if they were lesser creatures is just naive and just stupid.

If you've served this country, then I say thank you. If you haven't, I say thank you also.

Reading the infantile posts from the Lefties here are torture. They're making all the rest of us look like Pulitzer Prixe winners!

WWII, ironically by the Germans, most notably by the Luftwaffe. Everyone else has violated the conventions against US POWs as policy from the start.

What US service member captured by the allah or the sword crowd HASN'T been tortured?

US service members are treated well when their captors are moral, or fear their own fate if the Americans are not treated well. If they want civilized treatment, they'd better prove they deserve it.

That guy would wish he were dead. No qualms, no remorse, nothing to deter me and after I was done saving my family, I'd find out who helped him and take care of them too. All would end up in small pieces scattered amongst the crab traps all over this coastal area.

At which point a nice vodka tonic by the pool would be in order.

re-Joyce
i know. i was trying to get through to the "i wanna be as bad as them" people.

all you people who like torture, when your burning in hell, look to the left of you. that's the islamic scum who bombed people.
By tshirt-doctor.com

Heck, I'm just staying out of the way of all the flying testosterone in here today!!!

If my family were in imminent danger such as that, yes, I would torture, beat up, etc as necessary.

If a person threatened them directly with a weapon, it would be imminent danger. I would take action in that scenario if I could as well.

I will take necessary action for survival of myself, family, and friends. I will also let perpetrators know that actions/choices have consequences and when all is said and done, I am prepared to stand before a jury to be held responsible for my actions.

If my family are friends are in imminent danger and I am able to help, then the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will upheld.

You said "Evidence from KSM and others _proves_ it worked on them. No refuting that, so you will never acknowledge that."

by all means, share this evidence with us and the world. You'd be the first to do so.

J.D. BROOKS fo' prezdent.........

i know. i was trying to get through to the "i wanna be as bad as them" people.

all you people who like torture, when your burning in hell, look to the left of you. that's the islamic scum who bombed people.

heck yeah!

we should allow victims to sentence criminals too!

torture is against the LAW. What you're basically clamoring for is an angry mob out to enact revenge. This is WHY we have laws and people who enforce them.

Any sane parent understands that too.

"and what would you do when all the laws are cut down and the devil turns round on you? ... You think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then?"

taking snarks paragraphs one at a time

snark: then you're family will perish.

no, your will

snark: given what we know about torture and its usefulness to get reliable info, your family in this scenario will die if you decide to torture to get information that will save them.

Yes, people always quote 1984 as "proof" it doesn't work. Evidence from KSM and others _proves_ it worked on them. No refuting that, so you will never acknowledge that.

snark: also, by your standard, we should be torturing every criminal who might have knowledge of other acts of violence against citizens. Why dont we?

because in the scenario, the crime was known with certainty (a stretch of an assumption) and the questioner was civilian.


But feel secure in your path. While you google "polly klass" (spelling?)

If Michelle or the girls were kidnapped could Mr. Obama honestly say he would not waterboard a suspect even if he was not perfectly certain that the suspect knew anythinbg about the kidnapping? In a New York minute he would as would any compassionate parent.

then you're family will perish.

given what we know about torture and its usefulness to get reliable info, your family in this scenario will die if you decide to torture to get information that will save them.

also, by your standard, we should be torturing every criminal who might have knowledge of other acts of violence against citizens. Why dont we?

because it's against the LAW!

Someone below state that there are no exceptions to torture non-uniformed combatants in the Geneva Convention.
You are correct, but according to the Geneva Convention, these prisoners can be subject to immediate execution. I say go ahead. If we are going to follow a stupid convention that none of our enemies ever follows, meaning that we won't torture them to obtain information that could save American lives, then we should just start executing them on the spot. Firing squad, hanging, whatever.

Snarky say: No, I'm saying that to get what you consider justifiable by any means is why we have laws to begin with...


The offender has already broken the law. You can take your chances pointing a finger and whining "that's not fair!" and expecting some external agent to make it all better. I'll save my family.

It is imperative that I get that food! My family needs me. They cant live without my help. If you wont give it to me I will kill you and take it. (I will get that information to save lives no matter the cost or laws I break)

Snark, if you and your family needed food i would gladly give you some because i dont want you to die. Terrorists dont think that way (they try to protect their bretheren) Besides we're not talking about killing them. Do you honestly believe that we would be better off by kindly asking them the info we know they have? C'mon your a libtard not a retard. And stop putting up all these links. If you are confident in what you believe in you dont need them.

If the threat or fear of drowning is defined as torture then every single member of the Demcratic party in Congress should be brought up on charges.

With every new bill they pass, I feel like I'm drowning under the weight of the imposed taxes and debt. I can't catch my breath it presses so hard.

And, when Cap and Tax go through, and someone decides to start charging us for exhaling CO2 and growing our "carbon footprint" then we will be pressured not to breath at all.

So, when do we get to put the tax terrorists in Congress on trial for torturing us?

No, I'm saying that to get what you consider justifiable by any means is why we have laws to begin with...

"what would you do? cut a path through the law to get at the devil?"

Call it what you want,it gets results. Besides, a man has got to know his limitations.

snarky mistakenly said: exactly - ridiculous isnt it?

It is imperative that I get that food! My family needs me. They cant live without my help. If you wont give it to me I will kill you and take it. (I will get that information to save lives no matter the cost or laws I break)


Fool, I'm saying that, since I didn't take the food from you, your scenario doesn't match Neal's. In Neal's the person you are going to extract from is known to be guilty of taking something from you (wife and kids).

Or are you suggesting I took your job and therefore your food?

I'd take them water skiing on the Ogeechee River. They'd tell me anything I wanted to know after about two minutes, maybe less.

Is waterboarding torture?
Ask Mary Jo Kopechne...

would make a great tshirt or bumper sticker

Snarky said: Let's turn this around though. At all costs - right? OK, I'm starving. You have food. I really, really need it. BANG! - at all costs.


Um Snark...did I take that food from you? No.

>>>>>Go ahead, Neal-be a tough guy. Be waterboarded by a professional. Tell us how it's not torture. Hannity wimped out on being waterboarded. <<<<

Do you libs use any logic or is it just parroting these braindead DailyKos talking points.

Why on earth should we volunteer to be waterboarded when we didn't do anything wrong?????? WTF!!!!

As for your stupidity??? I will volunteeer to be waterboarded if you libs volunteer to be aborted. How's that sound?

I tell you what, if I commit an act of terrorism, I will sign a waiver that you can waterboard me? Let's face it, if I get caught in the Mid east doing something against the terorists, I can fully expect that waterboarding would be a dream vacation over there and the last of my worries.

Can someone please explain EXACTLY what procedure is when waterboarding? I am hearing conflicts.

blivit=osamabama

Yes Neal. There is one thing I would NOT be willing to do...show mercy.

Hows it going Neal? I hope your days goin alright bud.

Anyway, Im going to have to disagree with you on the first part of this paragraph. Getting waterboarded is one of the worst tortures a human can endure. It takes you to the brink of insanity.

So i think that is considered torture. Sorry bud

-Mike M from Norfolk

Okay, here's the thing... just because you would be willing to commit some act upon some person in order to save a loved one, that doesn't mean it's not torture. Would I waterboard someone to save my children? Absolutely. I wouldn't even think twice. I'd probably do a lot worse, in fact. Would I walk away from the incident believing that I had done nothing wrong, or that it was justified? No, not at all. I would torture someone to save my children. I would do it knowing full well that it was wrong. To try and justify it with this scenario is missing the point.

Snarky, really?? You mean that's all you can come up with.

Raymond, did not know you were the morality police. Stop typing and get back to making out with Snarky.

Jack Bauer would be impressed with my methods of extracting information from terrorists.

"You can't serve papers on a rat."

(If you know the movie, then you understand.)

I remember back in the '70s how the sensitive people were aghast at the scene of Dirty Harry getting the information he needed out of the poor suspect by standing on a gunshot wound, after he had tracked the guy and kicked down his door without a search warrant. The overlooked the fact that the psycho had kidnapped a girl, then sent the ransom note with her panties and a blood-encrusted tooth. But this guy laid on the ground whimpering, "I have the right..."

Neal, I had a similar conversation with an Obama supporter. What if someone had kidnapped his wife and threatened to kill her. He had the one man who could lead him to his wife. Would he use any means available to get the man to talk. He said "yes, but that is different than what the US did to detainees" My comment, "I rest my case."

Or for that matter Irene Kennedy?

I think this is a purely political move and I doubt anyone will actually be punished for their actions, Holder and Obama may be bleeding heart liberals but they aren't morons.

One of two things will happen, the investigations will continue on throughout the Obama administration with nothing coming of them. Or there will be trials and the CIA will take steps to get their agents out of the clutches of Holder.

I don't think the CIA is going to sit idly by while it's agents are railroaded by a far left wing administration.

The CIA head may be an Obama lap dog but there has to be a few patriots still in power over there, and hopefully that element will make sure the interrogators can go into hiding if the worst happens.

At least thats what I hope will happen, maybe I've been reading Vince Flynn too much...

Simplest, most abstract def I can come up with: "making somebody's life suck".
Now, we can look at method. Just incarcerating someone makes that person's life suck. Even an extremist has to admit that, at times, incarceration is necessary. Did the cops "torture" Bubba last Friday night when he got ripped and endangered others (and himself), then they took him into custody?
Next, motivation for torture. Saddam and Fidel and other such paragons would torture to secure their power. Our intel folks (whom I only reluctantly defend, but I do defend them here) are accused of torturing in order to get info.
Problem: if incarceration itself is by definition "making someone's life suck", haven't they already done that? Come on. Should we provide linen napkins and finger-bowls with the peaceful, serene terrorists' Halal meals?

I disagree with Boortz on this one. To me, repeatedly doing anything physical(or mental) to anyone against their will is "torture". How in the HELL can waterboarding a tied-up man NOT be torture? Is it a recreation? Is it a hobby? Is it a game? Is it welcomed? It IS one man doing something else to another man, forcefully, against their will.
And no, I do not believe those terrorists should be "waterboarded". They should have been ruthlessly murdered by our marines. Our marines screwed up. I fully support our marines hunting down and killing terrorists. But, waterboarding IS torture. It ain't, you say? Then turn your a$$ around and let me tie your hands together, wrap a towel around your head, and pour water down your throat till you choke. Sound like fun? Nope, it sounds like "T-O-R-T-U-R-E".

I offer only 12 words-
Red is positive, Black is negative, Make sure his balls are wet.

The only problem is that when you allow for the torture of our enemies, you give them a moral right to torture our captured servicemembers as well. The reason for the Geneva Convention is that all sides in a conflict want an assurance that their servicemembers will be treated humanely by the other side. Regardless of whether our enemies can be trusted to abide by this at all times...we DEFINITELY can't count on them to be more moral than ourselves can we?

I hope to God that our enemies never get the idea to waterboard one of our men and put the video on the internet. I suspect everyone in American will call it torture then.

In the above outlined scenario, water up the nose is going to be the most effective, I think. Check out the YouTube videos of people being voluntarily waterboarded. Naturally, whatever information the bad guy gives up would not be admissible in a court of law, but it would save my family. Those are two different requirements. I can answer, that yes, in a heartbeat I would apply whatever coercion needed to get the information.

The man I have in custody would be beaten horribly. I'd pull-out his fingernails. I'd repeatedly cut off his fingers until there were none left, then move to his toes. I'm sure I'd do things that were previously only shown in horror movies.

When it was over, no matter the outcome, I'd expect to be prosecuted. Most people who commit a crime KNOW they are doing so. As would be my case.

-Michael
I thought I was wrong once,
but I was mistaken.

Torture is what Mary Jo Kopechne was subjected to, but the Dems didn't seem to mind that.

Right on Neal.

...with electrodes. There is an ugly side to war, and I have always maintained that you fight a war to win. If you are not willing to fight to win, don't bother fighting at all.

The purpose of war is to impose your will on the enemy. If that boat don't float, don't even bother bringing it out of the bay.

Drowning someone isn't torture? Anything that makes someone fear he will lose his life is torture, by the definition in our treaties. (Read Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture, which *we* wrote). We called it torture when the Khmer Rouge did it. We'd call it torture if it were done to our soldiers or our spies. And no -- to head off that argument -- that are no exceptions in the convention for illegal combatants or non-uniformed combatants or acts of terrorism.

Sleep deprivation -- that is, the repeated and systematic deprivation of sleep for days or weeks (not waking someone up once in a while) is a cruel torture. Read Menachem Begin's description or the descriptions in the Gulag Archipelago. Did you see Jose Padilla after he was sleep-deprived for weeks on end? That was an American citizen?

As for the ticking time bomb -- that thing that never happens. A ticking time bomb is sometimes the worst time to practice torture because of the incredible damage false information does.

However, if that Hollywood scenario were to happen, here is what I would do. Authorize torture and then ask Congress to decide my punishment for having broken the law.

This is an incredibly ignorant post, Neal. And once again, a sign of how deeply you have surrendered in the War on Terror. You are so stricken with fear, you will sacrifice anything -- including torturing terror suspects (90% of whom where innocent by the Bush Administration's own admission, 100 of whom died under torture by the Bush Administration's own admission).

I asked someone this the other night: what if you could have captured Hitler, and tortured him to find out where he had shipped off all those trainloads of people?

In our warped, politically correct, backwards, idiotic society we have gotten to the point where we are supposed to feel sorry for the terrorists, murderers, bombers, rapists etc. And the victims of these monsters are either ignored or soon forgotten. We want to punish the good guys trying to protect us or the country, and we want to protect (or even release) the wrong-doers.

And the mainstream media has a very large part to do with our bleeding heart mentality towards terrorists, murderers, and other bad guys. We can't even bear to use the word "terrorist" anymore for these Islamic murderers. We (our media) call them militants, insurgents, and even freedom fighters. How insane!!!

Go ahead, Neal-be a tough guy. Be waterboarded by a professional. Tell us how it's not torture. Hannity wimped out on being waterboarded. This is your chance to show him how big your cajones are.

MAN UP OR SHUT UP, CLOWN!

This nonsense of "we are creating more terrorists when we torture.." What kind of logic is that?

QUIZ
Consider these scenarios, which scenario will create more trouble/criminals?:

(1) Assume you are criminal in a neighborhood. You are able to steal and plunder at will. If you get caught, no serious punishment is administered. The criminals also know, beforehand, that no serious punishment will be administered if they are caught.

(2) In another neighborhood, it's different. If you are caught committing serious crime, you will be truly tortured, ala The Saw movies.

Now tell me geniuses, if you are a wannabe criminal, which neighborhood would you be mored motivated to set up shop?

Neal - the difference in your scenario (the FL one you recount here) and the United States endorsing torture is that necessity is a defense to torturing someone, exactly as pointed out in the last paragraph of your comment. You say let the jury sort it out. Well, the US should take the moral high ground and take the position we do not torture. Many people confessed to anything to stop the torture of the Spanish Inquisition.

As I said when I called in a few months back, if my son is injured and we are out in the woods alone camping and I have made the poor decision to drink beyond the legal limit, I am going to drive him to the hospital, even though I am DUI at the time. If I am charged, I will plead necessity. Because this scenario could arise, it does not mean that the state should condone DUI. Just because of your scenario the US should not condone torture.

If it can be justified as necessary, then there is no issue. If it cannot, then the US needs to step usp and punish those who went against policy without necessity.

However, it needs to be a jury of peers, (i.e. soldiers) not a partisan panel bent on revenge against the last administration.

I agree with you on so many issues (I would cut the &*%$# until he told me where my child was in your scenario, in fact!) However, one scenario does not a policy make. Listen to NPR's propaganda for ObamaCare disguised as human interest stories. They tell one story, of one individual, in one scenario to support sweeping US policy that affects the entire population. It is pettifoggery at best by NPR and by you on this issue.

Entertaining, though.

There is very little I WOULDN'T do to protect my family...if anything.

Armchair generals with short term memories running the show. They seem to forget what happened close to 8 years ago. Typical lib mindset.

Neal - - The limp wristed "international community"and our panty-wist Liberals can interpret any unpleasantness as torture, e.g. "They forced me to eat broccoli" or "They did not change my underwear for three full days".

I think we should get tough with terrorists and make them look at Nancy Pelosi's face non-stop while being forced to listen to Hillary Clinton speeches. If that won't break them, nothing will..
173d VN Trooper

I have to agree with Neal here, I have discussed this subject with some of my Weak kneed leftist's co-workers and their main argument against torture is we are supposed to be better than them mentality.

Thats all Ducky in a utopia of ones mind but Reality is harder to deal with for some. You dont got to war and impose rules for the troops to read miranda rights, Soldiers are trained to break things and kill people thats reality. And after seeing what these Radical Islamics do to their captured I have little sympathy for waterboarding as its used as a training tool for the Navy Seals, Should be done to the house and senate also, might weed out 99% of the weak minded carpet-baggers we have taking up space there now.
Semper Fi

Other areas devastated by hurricane Katrina have long-since recovered or moved on and we don't hear about them. What about the horrific floods and tornadoes in the mid-west? Those communities came together and overcame their hardships in no time. California constantly has wildfires because the eco-nuts won't allow controlled burning and it devastates the state, yet they overcome each fire and we hear nothing else. I can't believe we are still hearing about New Orleans needing re-building after all these years. I get the mental image of people just sitting around waiting for someone else to come in and do the rebuilding for them.

I'm not even sure the cops would ever find out. Once I'm done with the perp I might just bury them in the place of my family.

I love how they are going after the low level CIA employees instead of the high level bureaucrats and elected officials who were responsible for the policies in the first place.

I'm glad we have Obama to keep those immoral republicans in line...

I told my wife when we were engaged that I had a .357. I told her that I wouldn't let ANYONE get between us, and if I had to kill someone in self defense I would.

My weapon stays locked up underneath my bed with the key on my car keys chain. Periodically, when we turn in for the night, my wife asks if I have grabbed the key to have ready access to defend her and our new born daughter. My family knows the value of self defense. Does yours?

Is waterboarding torture?
Ask Mary Jo Kopechne...

He or she would tell or they would be joining my family in the afterlife. Either way it would be the worst day this idiot every spent on earth and I would never lose any sleep on the things I had to do to protect my family. Once a person chooses to harm/kill another individual then they give up all rights they had to being treated as human.

The thing is Neal, YOU value the lives of youre wife and daughter. However, the left doesnt value the life of your wife and daughter. To them, they are just collateral damage in order to preserve the politically correct status quo.

They would rather see a million dead americans incinerated in a nuclear fallout than to "profile" one muslim terrorist.

Neal, you arent making republicans living in the 18th century happy. The constitution protects people from cruel and unusual punishment by the government.

Watch out Neal or republican protestors will get on their horse and buggy and protest your station

If they'd let Jack do it his way the show would be called '4'

I honestly don't give a sh^t if we use torture in order to preserve our safety. I just don't care, for one simple reason: THEY STARTED IT.